86 replies to this topic

[Blackfire1]

Exactally, its all based on the map type and gameplay rules. I'm pretty sure a CTF style of game would have some sort of respawn.

[Karyudo ds]

The problem as I see it is if there is any form of respawn, logical or not, I could run across the map with my Atlas, die, and tell you their location. Now you no longer need scout mechs and you have more guns on your team. So it might not entirely work as intended depending how this role warfare works.

[Project Hunchback]

now, there are alot of replies here and i didnt read them all, so I apologize if i am just repeating what someone has said already, but my personal opinion is that the reason I got into mechwarrior was it always made me really feel like I was piloting a mech...the combat situations were realistic, the combat controls were complicated enough to make me feel like it was real and in general, it was just made me feel like a real mechwarrior. Thats why I would hate for respawns to be incorporated into the main gameplay styles. Mechwarrior isnt just a shoot em up game, or a robot fps, its a simulation, and thats why I love it. having a minor gamemode of respawning mechs smashing into one another sounds fine, but the core gameplay should be realistic in every way possible.

Edited by bonzwah, 01 December 2011 - 12:08 AM.

[Skoll Lokeson]

With no respawns I fear most matches will be decided by who gets the first kill (or even first hit). The rest on the match will just be a mop up. The outcome on the match shoulden't be decided in the first 1/10th of the match. Winning as a result of numerical superiority is the lowst level of tactics, IMO.

I personally prefer games that maintain/promote balance through the entire match (even if they aren't as elite friendly as games that rewards the best/luckiest team with a decisive advantage that makes it easier for them to win the match). I think the outcome of a match should be decided by the last kill, not the first.

I'm not saying a bad implementation of respawning is better than a good system without respawns. I'm just not conviced that no-respawns in better by default, especially not in games where teamwork matters. It's just so easy to dominate as a team when you are allowed to be numerically superior that it's not even challenging.

[Karyudo ds]

Skoll Lokeson, on 01 December 2011 - 01:15 AM, said:

I'm not saying a bad implementation of respawning is better than a good system without respawns.

Any bad implementation is bad. Your argument sounds like the kids arguing that normal BF3 is better than hardcore BF3 because there's "more challenge in making more shots hit". The statement is true but that doesn't make the game any better, it just shifts the tactics in play. Are they better? Not really, it's mostly opinion after all. In a respawn game it comes down to repetitious combat. You get more time to play in the combat itself. In a no respawn game (or one in which you are fragile) the combat is over much quicker which some assume it simply bad. However what happens in reality is that instead of pure combat tactics positioning becomes much more important and thus there is still tactics involved, they are just more in the setup.

I prefer to have reason to think about the entire game, not just the shooting part. If I can respawn over and over then I'll just run in, they might get some points out of it but hey, I'll respawn anyway a few times at least so no big deal.

Now you suggest that the first blood decides the winner, but few times in MW4 did I ever see that actually end up happening. In some cases it did but many times one mech going down wasn't a big deal, 4 of them though certainly was. This is why I think hardcore salvage rules would make the game interesting because if you have something to lose then you also have reason to retreat. Of course you should always be able to play and I think salvage could work with that though I doubt they will use it specifically however I think the point is valid. If you have a reason to retreat and can gain something out of it so what if a mech on your team went down?

I think they also mentioned players deploying in Lances. I would guess that if that's important to mention then each lance might have it's own purpose on a shared battlefield. Just a theory, but if the case losing one mech in another lance might not affect you at all. Much of this depends on map sizes and objective though. I could see respawning work. Though not like it was in any of the MW games to date.

[FACEman Peck]

I think that the most beliveable way to respawn is to have some sort of mech hanger, numbers depenging on how many players there are in the game. They should be like a flag of sort, meaning your team captures forward operating hangers to restrict the places players can spawn. There should ALSO be 1-3 for each team that are impossible to be taken, so the game doesn't just end from lack of enemy resistance.

[Pipsin]

The idea of repairs at the site of where your mech gets blown into scrap metal is ....... I was going to say laughable, but poor will work just as well.

That would turn an objective based game into who can run forward fastest.

Repair of any kind will turn the game into a defend the repair bay fest, but not being able to respawn is equally poor.

I would like to see limited respawn. Prior to your mech being destroyed you are ejected, you can ride that ejection seat down to ground. you would then need to get back to a base/ mobile mech transport / dropship etc where you can get back into the fight.

Or you can mount up into a vehicle/helicopter, or just pull on some armour to join the PBI's (infantry).

you get the idea.